Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Timoric

-

Recommended Posts

Remember Paul Chu?

 

He's still at TcSUH over at U of H.  He did a stint as president at Hong Kong University but is now back at UH full time.  

 

UH has upped its game in trying to get better faculty.  A very large sum of money was spent to lure Jan-Ake Gustaffson from Sweden a few years ago with what I suspect was the hope that he could be the first professor to win the Nobel Prize while at UH for his work on the estrogen receptors.

 

For most research faculty, the choice of school comes down to dollars spent for research grants to build groups.  A satellite campus of UT is a threat to UH only to the extent it can promise better start-up packages for research groups.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have a solution.

Let U. of H. in the Big 12.

If U.T. wants to move into our community then I want them to fight for U. of H. getting into the Big `12.

That seems like a more than fair offer.

We have come a long way and I think we can compete in our areas of expertise. Now that we are being recognized as a Tier One

research institute we are winning more federal grants.

I think we can compete with any one on the football field.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is great and the UH crowd screaming foul are thinking very small. I might also add entitled. This city does not belong to any one institution.That would be like Boston/Cambridge saying, " no, we have too many world class institutions, no more,"

 

As with anything competition breeds better results. I not only welcome this but hope other universities take note of our great city and decide they need a presence here.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is great and the UH crowd screaming foul are thinking very small. I might also add entitled. This city does not belong to any one institution.That would be like Boston/Cambridge saying, " no, we have too many world class institutions, no more,"

 

As with anything competition breeds better results. I not only welcome this but hope other universities take note of our great city and decide they need a presence here.

 

It's hard to be competitive with UT when they have had millions upon millions of extra income from the 

Permanent University Fund. UH can never compete with UT and A&M if we never get a cut from that enormous pie. 
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have a solution.

Let U. of H. in the Big 12.

If U.T. wants to move into our community then I want them to fight for U. of H. getting into the Big `12.

That seems like a more than fair offer.

We have come a long way and I think we can compete in our areas of expertise. Now that we are being recognized as a Tier One

research institute we are winning more federal grants.

I think we can compete with any one on the football field.

 

If UT's gonna strike a deal to establish a research and collaboration development ("not" a full university... ;) ​), UH should get additional state funding as well as their on-campus teaching hospital. Forget about fighting for the athletics department on this one--fight for what really matters.

 

That being said, this campus is a rather dirty move by UT--and I went there myself. The Tribune needs to get its facts straight--not only does Houston have one private Tier One university, but it also has one public Tier One university--UH. It's not just a "growing research school". My wife is a UH alumni, and I support her side of things 100% on this one. If this happens, there must be some sort of quid pro quo to go along with it.

 

 

With that being said, a bump in state funding for UH to go along with the med school, and what the hell, let's throw the Big XII in there too, and now this endeavor by the UT Board of Regents seems to be a mighty fine idea for the City of Houston that I believe everyone can then fully support.

Edited by Sparrow
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't serious about the Big 12. It would be nice to be in a power 5 conference, but the funding is what worries me.

I know Houston doesn't belong to U. of H.

I just think it will be hurt by this. I think in the long run it will be great for the city of Houston, but I have my

concerns about faculty and research grants for U. of H. We have very limited funds to protect our faculty and Texas has

unlimited funds. Its kind of David and Goliath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't serious about the Big 12. It would be nice to be in a power 5 conference, but the funding is what worries me.

I know Houston doesn't belong to U. of H.

I just think it will be hurt by this. I think in the long run it will be great for the city of Houston, but I have my

concerns about faculty and research grants for U. of H. We have very limited funds to protect our faculty and Texas has

unlimited funds. Its kind of David and Goliath.

 

Exactly what I was saying about the Permanent University Fund. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bookmarking this from the UT Houston thread today:

 

I know we are long past the era when universities were in it for the education and betterment of society but [do they] not make enough money as it is?  I just find it disconcerting that all, not just UT, are in education solely for the money. 

 

 

 

​Thoughts?  And I know it's all too often considered heresy to question the idea that competition makes everything better, but this thread is a safe space to ask how to help nurture and competition play nicely together.

Edited by strickn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Texas, the situation is made worse by the lack of funding from the State, which mans the universities have to chase dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A&M has their Galveston satellite (which is the only non-CStat A&N campus that gets an official Aggie ring, I think) and Cstat isn't that far away with the Tomball Tollway expected to open up to Navasota within the next 5-10 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Houston A&M club is the largest alumni club in the country. They aren't focused on Houston. They're working to build their presence in Dallas with the new law school. I'd bet you would see an A&M Dallas before you saw an A&M HOUSTON campus.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very touchy subject for University of Houston Alum, as evidenced by the board of regents voting to condemn this

tactic by UT.

There is a lot of bad blood between the two schools and for many years University of Houston struggled to just stay afloat.

It didn't help to hear and read the slur commonly used by UT and A&M backers "Cougar High" which was quoted many times in print

in the 50's and sixties and up into the 70's until we finally were accepted into the SWC. Of course everyone knows we went

on to win the conference championship that first year and went on to win it several more times.

This finally quieted down the Cougar High talk.

Now were being recognized for the strides we've made in research and academics.

WE are no longer a commuter school as U. of H. has as many dorms on campus as any other school in Texas.

For years we have worked hard and received very little help from the legislature in receiving funds, support, or help.

On the other side of the coin you have The University and its little brother A&M, who split the Permian Basin fund,

which is a very very big pot. Other state schools in Texas have asked begged and pleaded with the legislature to split up that

money and spread the wealth since both of those Universities have more money than they know what to do with.

They also still get state money besides the Fund, and get upset if one of the other Texas schools ask for more.

They won't budge.

So now they want to come to Houston to try and squeeze U of H again and throw a lot of state money that they have been gifted to

build a (research/University) less than five miles from Rice and U. of H. I laugh because in the renderings Ive seen it looks

like a full blown UT with dorms fields and many more buildings than the TMC 3 research center proposed for the whole Med center.

Rice also is a private school with almost as much money as they have and they don't have anything to worry about.

It might be a good thing for the city but my cougar blood is boiling.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry your right. My apologies.

It's interesting now that you mention it though.

If it hadn't been for the fact that UT wouldn't enroll a black man Mr Sweatt, I believe back in 1947, to its law school, there wouldn't

Be a TSU.

the Texas legislature founded Texas Southern Law School after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that it is happening or that there are any plans for it to happen, but I would love to see a full-fledged UT-Houston, plus a full-fledged Texas A&M-Houston, plus a continuing advancement of UH.  We hare fast becoming the next global city and it's time we started acting like it in all ways, including a wide variety of premier advanced educational opportunities.

 

For comparison, here is a (probably incomplete) listing of public universities in some of our peer metro areas:

 

Chicago

Chicago State University

University of Illinois @ Chicago

Indiana University Northwest

Northeastern Illinois University

Purdue University Calumet

University of Wisconsin Parkside

 

D-FW

Texas A&M University-Commerce

University of North Texas

University of North Texas @ Dallas

University of Texas @ Arlington

University of Texas @ Dallas

Weatherford College

 

Houston

University of Houston

University of Houston-Clear Lake

University of Houston-Downtown

Texas Southern University

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda look at it this way; let's use sports as analogy. Specifically, Houston sports; The Rockets were that lovable bad team before we signed our big stars (Dwight and Harden), and The Astros were the laughing stock of the league for years. But this year we've seen a resurgence of "haters" talking trash about the Astros (Correa winning ROTY) and the Rockets ("Harden can only draw fouls, what a flop") because now we're legitimate forces.

People pay attention to these teams because they're good, and it's the same for UH. UT wouldn't spend this amount of money to develop a campus if they didn't think Houston was a viable and budding city for higher education. UH's resurgence only confirms that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that it is happening or that there are any plans for it to happen, but I would love to see a full-fledged UT-Houston, plus a full-fledged Texas A&M-Houston, plus a continuing advancement of UH.  We hare fast becoming the next global city and it's time we started acting like it in all ways, including a wide variety of premier advanced educational opportunities.

 

For comparison, here is a (probably incomplete) listing of public universities in some of our peer metro areas:

 

Chicago

Chicago State University

University of Illinois @ Chicago

Indiana University Northwest

Northeastern Illinois University

Purdue University Calumet

University of Wisconsin Parkside

 

D-FW

Texas A&M University-Commerce

University of North Texas

University of North Texas @ Dallas

University of Texas @ Arlington

University of Texas @ Dallas

Weatherford College

 

Houston

University of Houston

University of Houston-Clear Lake

University of Houston-Downtown

Texas Southern University

If you're going to include A&M Commerce, you should include all of our medical schools, the Business MBA in the Woodlands, and the Aggies in Galveston. I'm sure that would also give Chicago more as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

640px-Texas_Longhorn_logo.svg.png


 


^^^ ok, all of you guys already know that i love all of you...


however, you have got to be kidding me.... right?


everyone knows... are should know by now, that i bleed burnt orange!  i am a TEXAS LONGHORN through and through.  and yet, EVERY time that i see a positive enhancement (no matter what it is) regarding the university of houston.... i am beaming!


UH, TSU, and our illustrious RICE U, have all come along way throughout these multitudes of generations and decades.  as a proud houstonian, i am more than proud and honored to stand by each and everyone of these great universities.


however, they are not TEXAS!


neither of these wonderful universities harbor the power, global prestige, money... uber wealth, alumni... reaching all over the globe, world leaders... etc...


you name it, TEXAS has it!


nonetheless, please remember HAIF, that the university of texas.. is the premier institution of higher learning within this great state.


and whatever we choose to do within this great state of ours... can only enhance this great state of ours.  no matter what the circumstances.


therefore, please do not allow for our might / muscle to turn you green with envy.  just always remember our great and famous cliche...


we're TEXAS, what we do here changes the world.... 


 


  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

neither of these wonderful universities harbor the power, global prestige, money... uber wealth, alumni... reaching all over the globe, world leaders... etc...

you name it, TEXAS has it!

 

Rice is way more prestigious than Texas could ever DREAM of. Take that in your ROD coffee and drink it!  :P

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that it is happening or that there are any plans for it to happen, but I would love to see a full-fledged UT-Houston, plus a full-fledged Texas A&M-Houston, plus a continuing advancement of UH.  We hare fast becoming the next global city and it's time we started acting like it in all ways, including a wide variety of premier advanced educational opportunities.

 

For comparison, here is a (probably incomplete) listing of public universities in some of our peer metro areas:

 

 

Not to trounce on your post, but this calls for a little perspective:

 

Chicago

Chicago State University

University of Illinois @ Chicago - The only full-fledged public university in Chicago, and not even the flagship of its system. I've never even heard of most of these others, and I went to college in Chicago (at a private school).

Indiana University Northwest

Northeastern Illinois University

Purdue University Calumet

University of Wisconsin Parkside

 

D-FW

Texas A&M University-Commerce - Not really in Dallas. If you count this, you should count Prairie View A&M for Houston, its equivalent.

University of North Texas - Basically the equivalent of Sam Houston State for Houston, a former teachers' college.

University of North Texas @ Dallas - The satellite of a teachers' college. I didn't even know this place existed.

University of Texas @ Arlington - An old Texas A&M satellite sold at a pittance to UT for lack of interest.

University of Texas @ Dallas - A former TI research campus given to UT so that some of TI's research could be publicly funded. Closest thing Dallas has to a full-fledged public university, but is behind UH in this regard.

Weatherford College

 

Houston

University of Houston

University of Houston-Clear Lake

University of Houston-Downtown

Texas Southern University

Sam Houston State University

Prairie View A&M

University of Houston-Victoria (arguably)

 

All that being said, when you consider that the non-flagship UT and A&M schools are drawing from the same state endowments as UH, it is hard to justify wanting them to have campuses in Houston to compete with UH with their superior brand recognition advantage.  You just spread out the same money thinner, and UH needs all the help it can get. UH is what it is because UT and A&M did not build campuses in Houston.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to include A&M Commerce, you should include all of our medical schools, the Business MBA in the Woodlands, and the Aggies in Galveston. I'm sure that would also give Chicago more as well.

 

Nope.  Texas A&M - Commerce is a four-year degree-granting university, as are all the other institutions I listed, H-town Man's ignorance of their existence notwithstanding.  ;-)

 

 

Edited by Houston19514
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rice is way more prestigious than Texas could ever DREAM of. Take that in your ROD coffee and drink it!  :P

 

Rice is only more prestigious at the undergraduate level. In terms of research power and the sigificance of who teaches there and what they publish, UT is known internationally, Rice isn't. I don't get any pleasure saying this, since I have always liked A&M over UT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to trounce on your post, but this calls for a little perspective:

 

Chicago

Chicago State University

University of Illinois @ Chicago - The only full-fledged public university in Chicago, and not even the flagship of its system. I've never even heard of most of these others, and I went to college in Chicago (at a private school).

Indiana University Northwest

Northeastern Illinois University

Purdue University Calumet

University of Wisconsin Parkside

 

D-FW

Texas A&M University-Commerce - Not really in Dallas. If you count this, you should count Prairie View A&M for Houston, its equivalent.

University of North Texas - Basically the equivalent of Sam Houston State for Houston, a former teachers' college.

University of North Texas @ Dallas - The satellite of a teachers' college. I didn't even know this place existed.

University of Texas @ Arlington - An old Texas A&M satellite sold at a pittance to UT for lack of interest.

University of Texas @ Dallas - A former TI research campus given to UT so that some of TI's research could be publicly funded. Closest thing Dallas has to a full-fledged public university, but is behind UH in this regard.

Weatherford College

Southeastern Oklahoma State University

 

Houston

University of Houston  Cougar High

University of Houston-Clear Lake  Satellite of Cougar High (and many people have never heard of it)

University of Houston-Downtown  Satellite of Cougar High

Texas Southern University  Exists because UT (and probably UH) was/were racist

Sam Houston State University  Teachers college

Prairie View A&M  Exists because A&M was racist

University of Houston-Victoria (arguably)

 

All that being said, when you consider that the non-flagship UT and A&M schools are drawing from the same state endowments as UH, it is hard to justify wanting them to have campuses in Houston to compete with UH with their superior brand recognition advantage.  You just spread out the same money thinner, and UH needs all the help it can get. UH is what it is because UT and A&M did not build campuses in Houston.

 

Several thoughts:

 

1)  Your ignorance of the existence of some of these institutions of higher learning does not mean they don't exist.

2)  I'm not sure what you think constitutes a full-fledged public university, but it is pretty apparent that you have a unique definition. And your [mis]defining institutions off the list does not mean they don't exist.

3)  You are correct.  I should have included Prairie View A&M. 

4)  If we are including Sam Houston State in Houston's list, then we also have to add Southeastern Oklahoma State University (in Durant, OK) to the D-FW list.

5)  No to University of Houston-Victoria.  It is neither in our metropolitan area nor our combined area.

6) Your dismissals of the institutions in DFW are cute, but unavailing.  One could just as easily write snarky dismissals about the background of the University of Houston and the other public institutions in Houston.  See how easy it is above.

7) All that being said, why should we not aspire to have multiple public universities from a variety of systems in our global metropolis? 

Edited by Houston19514

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several thoughts:

 

1)  Your ignorance of the existence of some of these institutions of higher learning does not mean they don't exist.

2)  I'm not sure what you think constitutes a full-fledged public university, but it is pretty apparent that you have a unique definition. And your [mis]defining institutions off the list does not mean they don't exist.

3)  You are correct.  I should have included Prairie View A&M. 

4)  If we are including Sam Houston State in Houston's list, then we also have to add Southeastern Oklahoma State University (in Durant, OK) to the D-FW list.

5)  No to University of Houston-Victoria.  It is neither in our metropolitan area nor our combined area.

6) Your dismissals of the institutions in DFW are cute, but unavailing.  One could just as easily write snarky dismissals about the background of the University of Houston and the other public institutions in Houston.

7) All that being said, why should we not aspire to have multiple public universities from a variety of systems in our global metropolis? 

 

I think you're replying with a bit more competitive spirit than I did... A full-fledged public university is a school with a broad range of degree programs and resources. Anyone looking at your list of Chicago schools who is familiar with the city sees UIC as an immediate outlier. The others are very minor schools.

 

I didn't dismiss the DFW schools, just tried to add some more perspective than one can get by looking at a bare list of colleges. None of the public schools in Dallas is on the same level as UH, and that means more than just which city has a larger list of public schools.

 

No, Southeastern OSU in Durant is not comparable to Sam Houston State, since hardly anyone in Dallas would go there and pay out-of-state tuition, whereas SHSU has historically been a major if not THE major teachers' college for the Houston area. You actually have to think about these schools, not just look at distances on a map.

 

To your last question, I addressed this in my initial post. If all these public schools are competing for the same funds, it would be better to build up one than have multiple. Having a school with the resources to lure out-of-state faculty and grad students and do research projects of national significance is better for the city than having multiple weaker schools. How many major public universities does New York City have? It's pretty much CUNY and not much else. And that's all they need.

 

Edited by H-Town Man
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think two points are clear.

 

1. This is great for the city of Houston. It is just another thing it can tout as a reason for business and innovation here. As many on this board have said, a world class city has multiple institutions both in number and quality.

2. It could have a negative effect on UH but it is all speculation. Once again look at all these other city examples where there are several institutions.

 

In my opinion what this is really about is the PUF  (permamenent university fund) or in other words money. Lets looks at actual numbers/facts. One key note being that when the legislature gave these lands to the UT system they thought they were worthless. I bet there are some that still regret that decision.

 

-As it stands now the annual funds available from the PUF are split two ways 2/3 to the UT system and 1/3 to the Texas A&M system. Just so that everyone understands those are the SYSTEMS not UT Austin or A&M College Station. 

-Out of of the 2/3 the UT System receives ~30 % goes to UT Austin the remainder goes to the other UT schools; UTEP, UTSA, UTA, UT Dallas, etc.

-The 30% UT does receive comproises 8%, thats right 8% of UT Austin's annual budget.

-The legislature off course also sends money which is about 12% of UT Austin's annual budget

-All in the state only provides 1/5 of UT Austin's budget. The remainder comes from tuition, fundsraising, and other sources.

-The state is always looking to cut funding to UT, not add.

 

Much like in this case UT Austin is alway accused of being the grand and only  benefactor of the PUF but that is simply not the case. When you look at the facts the PUF helps UT Austin along with 15+ other schools in the UT and A&M systems. Much like UH has built it self up in recent years, UT Austin has built itself up but simply has been at it much much longer and had the advanatge of being first. The bad blood many reference is between UT Austin and UH but one of the main points that alumni keep bringing up is the PUF, which is not just UT Austin.

 

So as I said at the beginning this is about about crying wolf and money.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

-As it stands now the annual funds available from the PUF are split two ways 2/3 to the UT system and 1/3 to the Texas A&M system. Just so that everyone understands those are the SYSTEMS not UT Austin or A&M College Station. 

 

Unless something has changed in the past few years, this is not the case. The PUF only goes to the flagship schools and one or two others in each system. Most of the schools in each system receive from a different, smaller endowment, the same endowment that funds Texas Tech and UH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with competition--so long as schools are given an equal footing. Competition breeds ingenuity and excellence. The UT system has a Houston medical school, then the UH system should be granted the same by the state legislature. Additional state funding to a UT-Houston should be matched with additional matching funding to the UH system.

 

Edited by Sparrow
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are great posts. Much good information. Thought U of Chicago was public, turns out it's private. One comment, being a KU  man I have no dog in this fight. Nevertheless regardless of feelings the facts are if UT wants to build this campus they are going to do it. They have the muscle in all its permutations to pull this off. If UT puts their mind to it , it is a fait accompli. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless something has changed in the past few years, this is not the case. The PUF only goes to the flagship schools and one or two others in each system. Most of the schools in each system receive from a different, smaller endowment, the same endowment that funds Texas Tech and UH.

I wouldn't exactly say "one or two others in each system.  The following lists are straight out of the Texas Constitution:

 

A&M System Schools with access to interest from the PUF

(1) Texas A&M University, including its medical college which the legislature may authorize as a separate medical institution;

(2) Prairie View A&M University, including its nursing school in Houston;

(3) Tarleton State University;

(4) Texas A&M University at Galveston;

(5) Texas Forest Service;

(6) Texas Agricultural Experiment Stations;

(7) Texas Agricultural Extension Service;

(8) Texas Engineering Experiment Stations;

(9) Texas Transportation Institute; and

(10) Texas Engineering Extension Service.

 

 

UT System Schools with access to interest from the PUF

(1) The University of Texas at Arlington;

(2) The University of Texas at Austin;

(3) The University of Texas at Dallas;

(4) The University of Texas at El Paso;

(5) The University of Texas of the Permian Basin;

(6) The University of Texas at San Antonio;

(7) The University of Texas at Tyler;

(8) The University of Texas Health Science Center at Dallas;

(9) The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston;

(10) The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston;

(11) The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio;

(12) The University of Texas System Cancer Center;

(13) The University of Texas Health Center at Tyler; and

(14) The University of Texas Institute of Texan Cultures at San Antonio.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of how this money is split it still only goes to UT and A&M systems. How they divide up their booty is their deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't exactly say "one or two others in each system.  The following lists are straight out of the Texas Constitution:

 

A&M System Schools with access to interest from the PUF

(1) Texas A&M University, including its medical college which the legislature may authorize as a separate medical institution;

(2) Prairie View A&M University, including its nursing school in Houston;

(3) Tarleton State University;

(4) Texas A&M University at Galveston;

(5) Texas Forest Service;

(6) Texas Agricultural Experiment Stations;

(7) Texas Agricultural Extension Service;

(8) Texas Engineering Experiment Stations;

(9) Texas Transportation Institute; and

(10) Texas Engineering Extension Service.

 

 

UT System Schools with access to interest from the PUF

(1) The University of Texas at Arlington;

(2) The University of Texas at Austin;

(3) The University of Texas at Dallas;

(4) The University of Texas at El Paso;

(5) The University of Texas of the Permian Basin;

(6) The University of Texas at San Antonio;

(7) The University of Texas at Tyler;

(8) The University of Texas Health Science Center at Dallas;

(9) The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston;

(10) The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston;

(11) The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio;

(12) The University of Texas System Cancer Center;

(13) The University of Texas Health Center at Tyler; and

(14) The University of Texas Institute of Texan Cultures at San Antonio.

 

Looks like several A&M schools are still not included, along with a couple of UT schools. But you are right, it is more than one or two others - I suspect due to adding more over the years from political pressure (I was also talking about schools, not all the various centers and ag experiment stations).

Edited by H-Town Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still a little confused about what UH is worried about. If someone wants a UT degree today they currently leave Houston. Now, we'll just have more students stay in Houston. It will make for a more vibrant city and could enhance UH by encouraging more redevelopment in the third ward. They'd anchor a triangle (Rice, UT, UH) that could host thousands of students and encourage even more student life.

 

They're probably worried about politicians from other cities who don't want to see more of the state educational pie sliced towards Houston, and if there is a bigger UT presence in Houston, that could lessen their claim for more Tier One funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rice is only more prestigious at the undergraduate level. In terms of research power and the sigificance of who teaches there and what they publish, UT is known internationally, Rice isn't. I don't get any pleasure saying this, since I have always liked A&M over UT.

 

I suspect that a significant chunk of the perceived "research power" is due to sheer scale. Rice has less than 650 full-time faculty, as opposed to UT-Austin with just under 3100. Similarly, in terms of sponsored research, Rice pulls in roughly 20% of the money UT does (~$115MM vs. ~$540MM). 

 

A different metric of prestige: Rice's two Nobel Laureates were members of the Rice faculty at the time of the award, whereas UT has had several affiliated faculty that were Nobel Laureates, but I believe only one of them was on staff at the time of the award. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that a significant chunk of the perceived "research power" is due to sheer scale. Rice has less than 650 full-time faculty, as opposed to UT-Austin with just under 3100. Similarly, in terms of sponsored research, Rice pulls in roughly 20% of the money UT does (~$115MM vs. ~$540MM). 

 

A different metric of prestige: Rice's two Nobel Laureates were members of the Rice faculty at the time of the award, whereas UT has had several affiliated faculty that were Nobel Laureates, but I believe only one of them was on staff at the time of the award. 

 

Their Ph.D. programs don't get ranked in the top 20 in nearly every field just because they're big. Size doesn't hurt, but there are plenty of very large schools that don't have UT's academic standing.

 

I wish Rice would continue expanding its grad programs and aim to be a major university across a wide range of fields, but that kind of change takes a generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that a significant chunk of the perceived "research power" is due to sheer scale. Rice has less than 650 full-time faculty, as opposed to UT-Austin with just under 3100. Similarly, in terms of sponsored research, Rice pulls in roughly 20% of the money UT does (~$115MM vs. ~$540MM).

A different metric of prestige: Rice's two Nobel Laureates were members of the Rice faculty at the time of the award, whereas UT has had several affiliated faculty that were Nobel Laureates, but I believe only one of them was on staff at the time of the award.

UT poached Steven Weinberg from Harvard after he won his Nobel Prize for the electroweak force. Not sure about Nobel laureate faculty members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UT-Houston had Ferid Murad on staff at the time of his Nobel prize in medicine and physiology. He had done his "Noble" work elsewhere, at the moment I can't recall where.   I think all in  all the UT Research campus  is a big plus for Houston. Both the SF Bay area and Boston house more than one powerhouse university.  So can we. I for one, though being KU through and through  will look ill on attempts to weaken U o Houston.  It is the University of Houston after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but your list is missing quite a few public schools in our area. If you are including schools in Wisconsin for Chicago and Commerce for DFW, then A&M Galveston, Prairie View A&M, Sam Houston State and even Texas A&M should be on Houston's list. If you live in Cypress, you can drive to A&M more quickly than UH's main campus.

Not that it is happening or that there are any plans for it to happen, but I would love to see a full-fledged UT-Houston, plus a full-fledged Texas A&M-Houston, plus a continuing advancement of UH.  We hare fast becoming the next global city and it's time we started acting like it in all ways, including a wide variety of premier advanced educational opportunities.

 

For comparison, here is a (probably incomplete) listing of public universities in some of our peer metro areas:

 

Chicago

Chicago State University

University of Illinois @ Chicago

Indiana University Northwest

Northeastern Illinois University

Purdue University Calumet

University of Wisconsin Parkside

 

D-FW

Texas A&M University-Commerce

University of North Texas

University of North Texas @ Dallas

University of Texas @ Arlington

University of Texas @ Dallas

Weatherford College

 

Houston

University of Houston

University of Houston-Clear Lake

University of Houston-Downtown

Texas Southern University

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but your list is missing quite a few public schools in our area. If you are including schools in Wisconsin for Chicago and Commerce for DFW, then A&M Galveston, Prairie View A&M, Sam Houston State and even Texas A&M should be on Houston's list. If you live in Cypress, you can drive to A&M more quickly than UH's main campus.

That's...a good point. Why am I driving to UH from there? Damn...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple thoughts:

1. Let's face it, Houston is Texas's premiere city and I always thought it silly that there wasn't a full fledged UT campus here.

2. Lots of people here are stating that we could do with a prestigious UT campus, but who says the thing will be prestigious. UTD, and UTSA are big public schools but not more prestigious than UH.

3. Having two UH caliber schools here is better than 1, but having a full fledged Tier 1 public university is even better.

4. You guys know I won't leave this out but I love more urban campuses so I wish this was more closer in. I love the campus vibe and energy and this being on a site like post office, court house area, even KBR or Hardy would do wonders for the downtown area.

5. Why are we comparing public schools and leaving out private schools. Yes, we could do with more public schools but overall in the education department Houston blows away DFW. Rice blows away SMU; UH handles UTD, our combination of Medical And Law Schools are better, plus we have St Thomas, Houston Baptist etc. We have two Carnegie Tier 1 schools in the metro and 1 in the backyard, they have 0.

6. I would have been more overjoyed by a rice/Baylor/ South Texas college of law merger and UH gaining a med School. But some say 4 med schools is overkill.

7. Still concerned about how this will affect Future UT growth in the Med Center.

8. How is A&M reacting to this?

9. Would be funny if this turns out to be a double plus for Houston in that the competition made UH Stronger instead of weaker and at the same time the two Houston schools (UH and UTH) diminish UT prominence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even thought I've been a haifer for many, many years, I seldom post. But I feel compelled to jump into the fray. I'm not going to pretend to know what the future will look like years from now, if UT establishes a campus here or not. Being a UH alum makes me biased in favor of UH. So naturally, any competition for UH makes me squeamish, especially given the fact that UH has had to claw and fight for its current status, not being able to benefit from the PUF like many other Texas schools. But lets be clear about one thing, for those making the argument that other cities have more variety than Houston, and Houston should be comparable, are forgetting that none of those situations can come close to what UH would face.

 

UT is only one of the most influential and wealthiest publicly funded schools. UT Austin's budget for instance is $2.8 billion, compared to UH's $1.1 billion. And unlike what Urbanize713 said, the state isn't always looking to cut their budget. The budget was cut in 1991 by about a quarter due to a decrease in the PUF's oil revenue from $262 million in 1981 to $57 million in 1995. However, the PUF's distribution to the AUF has increased beyond its initial cuts, since its oil revenues has led to growth of about 10% annually. The PUF is worth about $15 billion.

 

UH's struggles may very well worsen if and when access to UT is made easier. UH does not draw its students in large numbers like UT from around the globe, getting most of its students from Houston's own diverse population. Students are not going to choose "UT Houston" over UT Austin because the drive is shorter. "UT Houston" will get its students from UH's pool. If a provision is made to offer degrees not currently offered by UH, then "UT Houston" will get its students from UHD or TSU. Understand that I am always for more development, so this is very conflicting for me. However, those of you who try to paint a rosy picture of any potential coexistence, seem to be ignoring the history of the schools. The possibility is there for potential deleterious effects to UH's ambitions. Don't get me wrong, UH isn't going anywhere and will survive. It may just have to take two steps back before being able to take one step forward.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a really good point, and my reasoning for the "rosy picture of coexistence" is because I'm seeing first hand how much UH is growing and what kind of institution it is today than it was when my father went almost 30 years ago.

UH is fastly becoming a "serious" school in the same way that high school grads view UT, A&m, Baylor, and Tech. Most of the grads that want to go to UT or A&M want to go to the Austin and CStat campuses, respectively. The satellite campuses are the last resort, so to speak. UTSA, A&M Galveston, etc. are not the go-to campuses for these guys, and that's how I imagine UT Houston will turn out.

Essentially, I see the growth and success of UH trumping a satellite campus for UT. Which isn't to say that UH shouldn't be cautious; they have every right to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Name branding is hard to fix.

Slapping a UT in front of something doesn't make it comparable to the reAL thing. UTD and UTSA are not comparable to UT Austin. UHD is not UH.

That's why I said i would rather see UH become a full fledged Tier one school, than another dime a dozen UT School That won't have any sort of name brand for the next 20 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even thought I've been a haifer for many, many years, I seldom post. But I feel compelled to jump into the fray. I'm not going to pretend to know what the future will look like years from now, if UT establishes a campus here or not. Being a UH alum makes me biased in favor of UH. So naturally, any competition for UH makes me squeamish, especially given the fact that UH has had to claw and fight for its current status, not being able to benefit from the PUF like many other Texas schools. But lets be clear about one thing, for those making the argument that other cities have more variety than Houston, and Houston should be comparable, are forgetting that none of those situations can come close to what UH would face.

 

UT is only one of the most influential and wealthiest publicly funded schools. UT Austin's budget for instance is $2.8 billion, compared to UH's $1.1 billion. And unlike what Urbanize713 said, the state isn't always looking to cut their budget. The budget was cut in 1991 by about a quarter due to a decrease in the PUF's oil revenue from $262 million in 1981 to $57 million in 1995. However, the PUF's distribution to the AUF has increased beyond its initial cuts, since its oil revenues has led to growth of about 10% annually. The PUF is worth about $15 billion.

 

UH's struggles may very well worsen if and when access to UT is made easier. UH does not draw its students in large numbers like UT from around the globe, getting most of its students from Houston's own diverse population. Students are not going to choose "UT Houston" over UT Austin because the drive is shorter. "UT Houston" will get its students from UH's pool. If a provision is made to offer degrees not currently offered by UH, then "UT Houston" will get its students from UHD or TSU. Understand that I am always for more development, so this is very conflicting for me. However, those of you who try to paint a rosy picture of any potential coexistence, seem to be ignoring the history of the schools. The possibility is there for potential deleterious effects to UH's ambitions. Don't get me wrong, UH isn't going anywhere and will survive. It may just have to take two steps back before being able to take one step forward.

 

Good thoughts. I think as long as this is a research campus and not a full UT satellite school, it won't hurt UH too much. Cornell is developing a tech research/advanced degree campus in NYC (Cornell Tech) but it is not considered a threat to CUNY's bread-and-butter, broad range programs for both grad and undergrad.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about applying that line of thinking to the students themselves?  Do they have enough freedom from competitive pressures?  I mean, even in high school there's this feeling that the admissions verdict from a competitive college is, in Frank Bruni's words, "the great, brutal culling" between the upwardly mobile and the hoi polloi.

 

He continues, "the nature of a student’s college experience — the work that he or she puts into it, the self-examination that’s undertaken, the resourcefulness that’s honed — matters more than the name of the institution attended. In fact students at institutions with less hallowed names sometimes demand more of those places and of themselves. Freed from a focus on the packaging of their education, they get to the meat of it."

 

This kind of painstaking personal filtering is more - much more - important than the talent filtering that our colleges pretend to perform.  And I would argue that our current academic draft system does not lead high schoolers in the right direction to undertake any of this.  Colleges are happy to up the hype, even as the majority of parents in American families basically just want their kids to be able to afford training for a decent line of work.

 
"...Yet there’s a frenzy to get into the Stanfords of the world, and it seems to grow ever crazier and more corrosive. It’s fed by many factors, including contemporary America’s exaltation of brands and an economic pessimism that has parents determined to find and give their kids any and every possible leg up.
 
And it yields some bitter fruits, among them a perversion of higher education’s purpose and potential. College is a singular opportunity to rummage through and luxuriate in ideas, to realize how very large the world is and to contemplate your desired place in it. And that’s lost in the [admissions filtering] mania."

 

Edited by strickn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...